"Syria is like Penn State, only with less outrage," Montini declared, before attempting to explain a comparison of the two.

Upon seeing this editorial, Greg Patterson, the former state lawmaker/lobbyist and current member of the Arizona Board of Regents who mans the "Espresso Pundit" blog, penned a very appropriate response, reading, in part:

"Usually it's right leaning politicians--not left leaning journalist--who make grossly insensitive comments about rape. Montini's column fails this test on two accounts. First, no matter how much you disagree with a Congressman's decisions, they are not equivalent to walking away while you know a boy is being raped in a shower. Montini's comparison of Salmon to coach McQueary is disgusting and should not be tolerated. Second, rape is such a horrific crime that reasonable people can't use it in a metaphor. You can't say that any type of Congressional deliberation is like ignoring child rape because the analogy both vilifies congressmen and makes light of rape."

Nailed it.

Montini actually wrote that thing last week (Friday's Republic), in which he apparently compares Salmon to Penn State assistant football coach Mike McQueary -- the guy who saw Sandusky in the shower with a young boy.

From Montini's column:

If McQueary had intervened, he could not be sure what he was getting himself into. So he concluded he should not enter the shower area alone. I'd guess he would have acted differently in the boy being molested was his son. But he wasn't. So McQueary left.

That logic is similar to those who say we shouldn't intervene in Syria.

We're not exactly sure how the moral obligation is supposed to be the same for killing a bunch of people none of us has ever met, and stopping a kid from getting raped. Or was McQueary supposed to bomb the Penn State campus to kill a child rapist? How are these the same, and how is this even an argument?

The Republic's editorial board, a "big supporter" of the Iraq War, apparently opposes military action in Syria.